Thursday, March 13, 2008

Rocky 2 - what happened?

Well, I watched about 6 more episodes of Rocky and Bullwinkle and so far, it seems the really good drawings are only in the first half hour.Compare these to the post from a couple days ago.Everything has been evened out and stiffened and just plain drawn pretty badly.My uneducated conclusion is this: Maybe the first half hour was drawn here by top Hollywood layout guys like Pete Burness or Bill Hurtz. Maybe the first episode is the pilot that I've read about.If these are the episodes that Jay Ward complained about snding to Mexico and coming back looking amateurish, then I understand.I wouldn't understand it if he said that about the drawings in my last Rocky post.

BTW, I was thinking about breaking down a couple of those good drawings into their principles to show you what I think is great about them. Would that be of any use to anyone?

Please do a breakdown post John. For the life of me, I can't see the differences between this and the last post other than distinct variations from the model. I have no idea what's going on that defines either set as good/bad drawings.

I've been watching my Rocky & Bullwinkle dvd set ever since your previous post on them. I'd like to suggest that you check out the Fractured Fairy Tale Beauty and the Beast. The beast has some rather strange poses whenever he gets knocked around. I don't know if you'll love them or hate them. Either way they should be checked out.

I found your blog because of the previous Bullwinkle post. I would love to hear your thoughts on what principles make great cartoons. I've been digging through your blog, and it appears you've got a great taste in cartoons (ie, similar to mine - hee-hee). I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on Ralph Bakshi and Bob Clampett. (When I was younger, that first Daffy Duck struck a chord with me that I haven't been able to express ... just something about the artwork).

John, according to the official history of Ward, you've got it 100% backwards.The initial work was all outsourced to a cheap and inexperienced studio in Mexico - had this not been done, the sponsor (General Mills) and the network would never have green lit the series concept. As you know, in those days, the concept and the execution was a terciary concern in contrast to the production cost. All that was incumbent upon the producer was to fill the damn time slot, and not to rock the boat. The cynicism of networks and sponsors was incredible.

Later on during "The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show" (as opposed to the original title, "Rocky and His Frends") you'll come across a storyline in which Rocky and Bullwinkle are tied to a stake. Bullwinkle says he doesn't think the network will sign off on showing cute animals being harmed, but Rocky assures him otherwise. Immediately, the wise narrator, Bill Conrad, chimes in and says "As the network-approved flames rose higher and higher, ..." Ward was even allowed to get away with commenting on the cynicism of children's television. As long as the cereal sold (which it did), no one gave a fuck.

The triumph of Ward was clearly not of graphic design but of writing and acting. The writing was absolutely worthy of a Pulitzer.

The first season's stories were written in Hollywood but completed in Mexico, largely without appropriate supervision. This was true of both "Fractured Fairy Tales" and of R&B. You may have observed by now that the first batch of FFT have a very UFA, very stylized graphic look, which later seasons did not maintain. According to the bio, when the original work came back to the Ward Studios from Mexico, Ward and his team were horrified but had no budget to reshoot the material. Ward and his team - if you're interested - animated in Hollywood the intros, bumpers, cereal commercials... oh, and the Bullwinkle puppet segments. When Ward sent members of his team down to Mexico, they were horrified at the unprofessional working conditions they found. They barely checked animation consistency, they had antiquated and barely functioning cameras (without proper vacuums so the footage became filthy)... and so on. In fact, the restoration process of that Mexican footage in the digital age included basically fixing practically ALL the original colors, which had just about washed out. Some of the aspects of Bullwinkle's original design that you said you liked, including the goofy mouth in the middle of his snout (looking just a bit like what mouths look like on "Robot Chicken" now - mouths plastered on top of models), were in fact NOT on-model. After some quick communications to the Mexican studio, the animators down there tried to follow Ward's team's instructions more closely, but were so inept that the results include horrendous and visible pencilling errors, Bullwinkle's mouth floating off his face, color inconsistency between head and neck (okay, what studio back then wasn't guilty of that, right?), and Natasha Fatale's wayward nose as in the screen capture you posted.

You are right that there is a sudden and even jarring transformation of the animation in the MIDDLE of the first two stories (the other one being the Box Top Robbery story). By Season Two, Ward had pulled almost all the R&B animation duties back in-house. Mexico continued to produce the animation for FFT. By the time Dudley Do-Right and Aesop came along, quality controls had been introduced at the Mexican studio, and in fact I think one of Ward's key people stayed in Mexico to supervise ... more like the Rough Draft method and Gregg Vanzo I imagine.

Is that the right name? Gregg Vanzo? I do not, not, not claim to be an expert on stuff like this... only a fan. I just find it exceptionally funny that the characteristics which endear you to the very early R&B episodes, the ones you ascribe to legendary animators like Burness, were actually done by utter incompetents. The work you DON'T like was actually done by the master animators.

By the way, I do not like the Aesop series. I find them boring and 100% identical from start to finish. Dudley Do-Right, however... magnificent. Again, a triumph of writing and acting over graphic design.

Hokey Smokes, John, you sure are picky! I really quite like these images as well as the first batch, though I can see that they've been drawn in more conventional TV cartoon terms, striving for a more consistent look from scene to scene. I'm not sure however as to why Natasha is doing her best Michael Jackson impression in that scene with the the radio.

Frankly, I'm a sucker for practically any TV cartoon from that era that has the big chunky ink outline. Actually, the only image you've posted so far that I seriously dislike was the one the other day of the thin, xeroxed line Rocky. As Boris Badenov might describe it: "Iss only mess and scribble!"

How much of Rocky and Bullwinkle influenced your taste for the 'variety show' cartoon?

Of course, Hanna-Barbera had their own 'variety show' cartoon airing in 1959, but something about R & B seems closer to your work - I'm thinking of the connection between Bullwinkle as Mr Know-It-All and Stimpy as Dr Stupid.

Hey John, this might be a littel off topic, but I thought you'd like to see an explanation of why things like Shrek happen, from an honest and well-intentioned artist from the inside of the production.

John, I need to ask Harvey Siegle Williams to put in his words how it all went, since he was there at Gamma, supervising and directing a lot of this work. We have to realize, this was the first network primetime animated series, in many ways this is truly the dawn of limited animation, and folks like Harvey were making it up as they went along- like those days of trying to animate on the infant internet with Macromedia Director... I doubt Roger Ramjet wouldv'e ever come about without red-eyed Boris as his forfather- to me, this is a little messy and choppy, but it's still great cartoonwork, warts n' all!

If I remember right, they get better later on in the season. Not quite as good as the first episode, though. I'm thinking maybe around when they're heading for Washington... I do remember there being some really bad ones toward the beginning.

Please keep posting these up John. Even with the later episodes you will still find some good shots. I just think that over all these cartoons were alot of fun with good writing. I even remember Chuck Jones bad mouthing them saying that cartoons like the Simpsons and Rocky & Bullwinkle are "Radio" cartoons, that just by watching the action (and turning off the sound) you can't tell whats going on. Even though I love both of them I think he's right.

this might be the wrong place to ask, but are you a fan of fleischer? and betty boop? i remember reading your really old posts some time ago and seeing mention of betty, but i don't recall it being good or bad. sorry if this comment is really superfluous to the thread i'm posting it on, i wasn't sure how to message you.

Personally, I don't think there's all that much difference. They all have characters and props with fat outer line weights, which is always a plus as far as I'm concerned. They all have quirky, off-kilter action poses, the backgrounds are all skritchy and awesome too, with funny, abstract elements. I mean, there are some slight differences but not enough to reduce the charm of the cartoons. It all looks funny and kooky to me. To each his own. John, I agree with you almost every time when it comes to your analyzations, but I think this may be a case of splitting hairs...?

I find these ones worse than the others, but I don't see there's such a big difference. Yep, there are some mistakes and poor facial expressions and maybe some of them doesn't have a very clear line of action, but there are some nice pics there, I actually like the one with Bullwinkle talking to a frightened Boris Badenov. What's so bad about that one?

Are there any Bullwinkle videotapes still for sale? I only ask because, statistically, the videotapes don't go out of their way to fuck up the picture and music. But for DVD, everything's gotta be shiny and new! :::grumble:::moan::::

I gotta side with Pete, John. Sure, the drawings you posted are more evenly spaced and on-model ( and I like the ones you posted earlier more than these ), but for my tastes, there's definitely enough fun to go around.

"BTW, I was thinking about breaking down a couple of those good drawings into their principles to show you what I think is great about them. Would that be of any use to anyone?"

PLEASE! That would be great, to see you break down a much simpler style than the 40's look.

Yes. I want to understand the art of layout! I can definitely see a difference between the drawings of your 2 posts. But beyond that, I'm clueless. It's not the most popular topic in animation books, even if it should be.

If you make a post on the good aspects of R&B drawings I will definitely appreciate that because I am really interested in using humor in drawings by distorting body parts such as a small person with big feet.

John, on another off-shot topic all together, you should try to acquire control of Woodbury University's animation department. Revitalize that place, for many of what I feel, are some good prospects.1) Relatively close to the industry that many prospective students want to be apart of2) Private, therefore easier to make executive changes with much bureaucracy. 3)Woodbury now has a more formal relationship with ASiFA Hollywood, as far as hosting events for aspiring animators4) Because of its closeness to the industry, it would be hard for currently working professionals to say no to guest lecturing.5) Tuition is cheaper than CalArts (duh)6)Mandate that students internship at the Animation Archive for history class, and learn about their animation past.7) Down-size the current faculty from it's current 10-15 "specialty" teachers, to 4-5 hardcore, well-rounded ones, and save the department a bunch of money to spend on something more beneficial for students.

If CalArts is "the Harvard of animation" make Woodbury their Princeton rival. Just my suggestion for da day.Peace

I'm not sure, John. Many of the framegrabs do not look that bad (except for Natasha. She's horribly drawn in these framegrabs. Borris has simply been toned down.), does it? Plus, the inking has improved in terms of slickness.

Well! These posts sure opened up a can'o'beans. Say, JohnK- one other little segment to look at before you retire the seas. one DVD in boredom-- in Show 16, the Dudley Do-Right episode "Stokey The Bear" is pretty amusing, it was banned immediately after broadcast for reasons obvious upon watching. I'm glad someone mentioned the laugh tracks in the early shows--I'd forgotten about those, no wonder the powers-that-be scrubbed those out.OK, enough about Jay Ward! I surrender. Definitely examine the animation, though, as it seems people are into the idea.

I wonder if the change in drawing quality during R&B's first season represented turnover at the animation studio. I understand this was a startup studio in a city without much of an animation industry. The artists on the first few episodes may have been the better cartoonists, but weren't able to keep up with the production schedule. They might have been replaced by lesser artists who were able to crank it out. OR, maybe the same animators sacrificed their drawing style for quick production. And they might have been told by their U-S bosses to make the cartoons move a little more, thus making the production pressure even greater. The earliest R&B cartoons have the least actual movement.

John, in relation to your earlier post on this topic, I'd be interested in hearing more about the re-recording of voices for this DVD. I just haven't noticed it myself. But I know that the cast of the show was more subdued in those first episodes, and became more manic later on. Also, one character, Capt. Peachfuzz, changed voices entirely. My guess is he was initially voiced by Bill Scott, but later handed over to Paul Frees.